Sunday, September 16, 2012

“The Sunburn Missile: The Weapon That Could Defeat The US In The Gulf”

“The Sunburn - Iran's Awesome Nuclear Anti-Ship Missile
The Weapon That Could Defeat The US In The Gulf”
By Mark Gaffney

"A word to the reader: The following paper is so shocking that, after
preparing the initial draft, I didn't want to believe it myself, and
resolved to disprove it with more research. However, I only succeeded in
turning up more evidence in support of my thesis. And I repeated this
cycle of discovery and denial several more times before finally deciding
to go with the article. I believe that a serious writer must follow the
trail of evidence, no matter where it leads, and report back. So here
is my story. Don't be surprised if it causes you to squirm. Its purpose
is not to make predictions history makes fools of those who claim to
know the future but simply to describe the peril that awaits us in the
Persian Gulf. By awakening to the extent of that danger, perhaps we can
still find a way to save our nation and the world from disaster. If we
are very lucky, we might even create an alternative future that holds
some promise of resolving the monumental conflicts of our time. - MG

In July, 2004, they dubbed it operation Summer Pulse: a simultaneous
mustering of US Naval forces, world wide, that was unprecedented.
According to the Navy, it was the first exercise of its new Fleet
Response Plan (FRP), the purpose of which was to enable the Navy to
respond quickly to an international crisis. The Navy wanted to show its
increased force readiness, that is, its capacity to rapidly move combat
power to any global hot spot. Never in the history of the US Navy had so
many carrier battle groups been involved in a single operation. Even
the US fleet massed in the Gulf and eastern Mediterranean during
operation Desert Storm in 1991, and in the recent invasion of Iraq,
never exceeded six battle groups. But last July and August there were
seven of them on the move, each battle group consisting of a
Nimitz-class aircraft carrier with its full complement of 7-8 supporting
ships, and 70 or more assorted aircraft. Most of the activity,
according to various reports, was in the Pacific, where the fleet
participated in joint exercises with the Taiwanese navy.

But why so much naval power underway at the same time? What potential
world crisis could possibly require more battle groups than were
deployed during the recent invasion of Iraq? In past years, when the US
has seen fit to "show the flag" or flex its naval muscle, one or two
carrier groups have sufficed. Why this global show of power? The news
headlines about the joint-maneuvers in the South China Sea read: "Saber
Rattling Unnerves China", and: "Huge Show of Force Worries Chinese." But
the reality was quite different, and, as we shall see, has grave
ramifications for the continuing US military presence in the Persian
Gulf; because operation Summer Pulse reflected a high-level Pentagon
decision that an unprecedented show of strength was needed to counter
what is viewed as a growing threat in the particular case of China,
because of Peking's newest Sovremenny-class destroyers recently acquired
from Russia.

"Nonsense!" you are probably thinking. That's impossible. How could a
few picayune destroyers threaten the US Pacific fleet?" Here is where
the story thickens: Summer Pulse amounted to a tacit acknowledgement,
obvious to anyone paying attention, that the United States has been
eclipsed in an important area of military technology, and that this
qualitative edge is now being wielded by others, including the Chinese;
because those otherwise very ordinary destroyers were, in fact,
launching platforms for Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise
missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for which the US
Navy currently has no defense. Here I am not suggesting that the US
status of lone world Superpower has been surpassed. I am simply saying
that a new global balance of power is emerging, in which other
individual states may, on occasion, achieve "an asymmetric advantage"
over the US.

The Sunburn Missile: I was shocked when I learned the facts about
these Russian-made cruise missiles. The problem is that so many of us
suffer from two common misperceptions. The first follows from our
assumption that Russia is militarily weak, as a result of the breakup of
the old Soviet system. Actually, this is accurate, but it does not
reflect the complexities. Although the Russian navy continues to rust in
port, and the Russian army is in disarray, in certain key areas Russian
technology is actually superior to our own. And nowhere is this truer
than in the vital area of anti-ship cruise missile technology, where the
Russians hold at least a ten-year lead over the US. The second
misperception has to do with our complacency in general about
missiles-as-weapons probably attributable to the pathetic performance of
Saddam Hussein's Scuds during the first Gulf war: a dangerous illusion
that I will now attempt to rectify.

Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship
for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could
not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and
maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative
approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and
sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The
Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles,
one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called "the most lethal
missile in the world today."

After the collapse of the Soviet Union the old military establishment
fell upon hard times. But in the late1990s Moscow awakened to the
under-utilized potential of its missile technology to generate
desperately needed foreign exchange. A decision was made to resuscitate
selected programs, and, very soon, Russian missile technology became a
hot export commodity. Today, Russian missiles are a growth industry
generating much-needed cash for Russia, with many billions in combined
sales to India, China, Viet Nam, Cuba, and also Iran. In the near future
this dissemination of advanced technology is likely to present serious
challenges to the US. Some have even warned that the US Navy's largest
ships, the massive carriers, have now become floating death traps, and
should for this reason be mothballed.

The Sunburn missile has never seen use in combat, to my knowledge, which
probably explains why its fearsome capabilities are not more widely
recognized. Other cruise missiles have been used, of course, on several
occasions, and with devastating results. During the Falklands War,
French-made Exocet missiles, fired from Argentine fighters, sunk the HMS
Sheffield and another ship. And, in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq war, the
USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol
in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the
incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach
to within 50 miles. The radar also "saw" the Iraqi plane turn about and
return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his
weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were
only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark,
crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.

The 1987 surprise attack on the Stark exemplifies the dangers posed by
anti-ship cruise missiles. And the dangers are much more serious in the
case of the Sunburn, whose specs leave the sub-sonic Exocet in the dust.
Not only is the Sunburn much larger and faster, it has far greater
range and a superior guidance system. Those who have witnessed its
performance trials invariably come away stunned. According to one
report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow
in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the
Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani
that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles.

The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload or a 750-pound
conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the
range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times
the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and
includes "violent end maneuvers" to elude enemy defenses. The missile
was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system.
Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an
incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a
fire solution not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US
Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000
depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise
coordinates to destroy an intruder "just in time."

The Sunburn's combined supersonic speed and payload size produce
tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for
ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship,
yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Although the Navy has
been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system, its replacement,
known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has never been tested against
the weapon it seems destined to one day face in combat. Implications For
US Forces in the Gulf

The US Navy's only plausible defense against a robust weapon like the
Sunburn missile is to detect the enemy's approach well ahead of time,
whether destroyers, subs, or fighter-bombers, and defeat them before
they can get in range and launch their deadly cargo. For this purpose US
AWACs radar planes assigned to each naval battle group are kept aloft
on a rotating schedule. The planes "see" everything within two hundred
miles of the fleet, and are complemented with intelligence from orbiting
satellites.

But US naval commanders operating in the Persian Gulf face serious
challenges that are unique to the littoral, i.e., coastal, environment. A
glance at a map shows why: The Gulf is nothing but a large lake, with
one narrow outlet, and most of its northern shore, i.e., Iran, consists
of mountainous terrain that affords a commanding tactical advantage over
ships operating in Gulf waters. The rugged northern shore makes for
easy concealment of coastal defenses, such as mobile missile launchers,
and also makes their detection problematic. Although it was not widely
reported, the US actually lost the battle of the Scuds in the first Gulf
War termed "the great Scud hunt" and for similar reasons.

Saddam Hussein's mobile Scud launchers proved so difficult to detect and
destroy over and over again the Iraqis fooled allied reconnaissance
with decoys that during the course of Desert Storm the US was unable to
confirm even a single kill. This proved such an embarrassment to the
Pentagon, afterwards, that the unpleasant stats were buried in official
reports. But the blunt fact is that the US failed to stop the Scud
attacks. The launches continued until the last few days of the conflict.
Luckily, the Scud's inaccuracy made it an almost useless weapon. At one
point General Norman Schwarzkopf quipped dismissively to the press that
his soldiers had a greater chance of being struck by lightning in
Georgia than by a Scud in Kuwait.

But that was then, and it would be a grave error to allow the Scud's
ineffectiveness to blur the facts concerning this other missile. The
Sunburn's amazing accuracy was demonstrated not long ago in a live test
staged at sea by the Chinese and observed by US spy planes. Not only did
the Sunburn missile destroy the dummy target ship, it scored a perfect
bull's eye, hitting the crosshairs of a large "X" mounted on the ship's
bridge. The only word that does it justice, awesome, has become a
cliché, hackneyed from hyperbolic excess.

The US Navy has never faced anything in combat as formidable as the
Sunburn missile. But this will surely change if the US and Israel decide
to wage a so-called preventive war against Iran to destroy its nuclear
infrastructure. Storm clouds have been darkening over the Gulf for many
months. In recent years Israel upgraded its air force with a new fleet
of long-range F-15 fighter-bombers, and even more recently took delivery
of 5,000 bunker-buster bombs from the US weapons that many observers
think are intended for use against Iran.

The arming for war has been matched by threats. Israeli officials have
declared repeatedly that they will not allow the Mullahs to develop
nuclear power, not even reactors to generate electricity for peaceful
use. Their threats are particularly worrisome, because Israel has a long
history of pre-emptive war. Never mind that such a determination is not
Israel's to make, and belongs instead to the international community,
as codified in the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). With regard to Iran,
the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA's) recent report
(September 2004) is well worth a look, as it repudiates facile claims by
the US and Israel that Iran is building bombs. While the report is
highly critical of Tehran for its ambiguities and its grudging release
of documents, it affirms that IAEA inspectors have been admitted to
every nuclear site in the country to which they have sought access,
without exception. Last year Iran signed the strengthened IAEA
inspection protocol, which until then had been voluntary. And the IAEA
has found no hard evidence, to date, either that bombs exist or that
Iran has made a decision to build them.

In a talk on October 3, 2004, IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradei
made the clearest statement yet: "Iran has no nuclear weapons program",
he said, and then repeated himself for emphasis: "Iran has no nuclear
weapons program, but I personally don't rush to conclusions before all
the realities are clarified. So far I see nothing that could be called
an imminent danger. I have seen no nuclear weapons program in Iran. What
I have seen is that Iran is trying to gain access to nuclear enrichment
technology, and so far there is no danger from Iran. Therefore, we
should make use of political and diplomatic means before thinking of
resorting to other alternatives." No one disputes that Tehran is
pursuing a dangerous path, but with 200 or more Israeli nukes targeted
upon them the Iranians' insistence on keeping their options open is
understandable. Clearly, the nuclear nonproliferation regime today hangs
by the slenderest of threads. The world has arrived at a fateful
crossroads.

A Fearful Symmetry? If a showdown over Iran develops in the
coming months, the man who could hold the outcome in his hands will be
thrust upon the world stage. That man, like him or hate him, is Russian
President Vladimir Putin. He has been castigated severely in recent
months for gathering too much political power to himself. But according
to former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who was interviewed on US
television recently by David Brokaw, Putin has not imposed a tyranny
upon Russia yet. Gorbachev thinks the jury is still out on Putin.

Perhaps, with this in mind, we should be asking whether Vladimir Putin
is a serious student of history. If he is, then he surely recognizes
that the deepening crisis in the Persian Gulf presents not only manifold
dangers, but also opportunities. Be assured that the Russian leader has
not forgotten the humiliating defeat Ronald Reagan inflicted upon the
old Soviet state. (Have we Americans forgotten?) By the mid-1980s the
Soviets were in Kabul, and had all but defeated the Mujahedeen. The
Soviet Union appeared secure in its military occupation of Afghanistan.
But then, in 1986, the first US Stinger missiles reached the hands of
the Afghani resistance; and, quite suddenly, Soviet helicopter gunships
and MiGs began dropping out of the skies like flaming stones. The tide
swiftly turned, and by 1989 it was all over but the hand wringing and
gnashing of teeth in the Kremlin. Defeated, the Soviets slunk back
across the frontier. The whole world cheered the American Stingers,
which had carried the day.

This very night, as he sips his cognac, what is Vladimir Putin thinking?
Is he perhaps thinking about the perverse symmetries of history? If so,
he may also be wondering (and discussing with his closest aides) how a
truly great nation like the United States could be so blind and so
stupid as to allow another state, i.e., Israel, to control its foreign
policy, especially in a region as vital (and volatile) as the Mid-East.
One can almost hear the Russians' animated conversation: "The Americans!
What is the matter with them?" "They simply cannot help themselves."
"What idiots!" "A nation as foolish as this deserves to be taught a
lesson." "Yes! For their own good." "It must be a painful lesson, one
they will never forget. "Are we agreed, then, comrades?" "Let us teach
our American friends a lesson about the limits of military power..."

Does anyone really believe that Vladimir Putin will hesitate to seize a
most rare opportunity to change the course of history and, in the
bargain, take his sweet revenge? Surely Putin understands the terrible
dimensions of the trap into which the US has blundered, thanks to the
Israelis and their neo-con supporters in Washington who lobbied so
vociferously for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, against all friendly and
expert advice, and who even now beat the drums of war against Iran.
Would Putin be wrong to conclude that the US will never leave the region
unless it is first defeated militarily? Should we blame him for
deciding that Iran is "one bridge too far"? If the US and Israel
overreach, and the Iranians close the net with Russian anti-ship
missiles, it will be a fearful symmetry, indeed.

Springing the Trap: At the battle of Cannae in 216 BC, the great
Carthaginian general, Hannibal, tempted a much larger Roman army into a
fateful advance, and then enveloped and annihilated it with a smaller
force. Out of a Roman army of 70,000 men, no more than a few thousand
escaped. It was said that after many hours of dispatching the Romans,
Hannibal's soldiers grew so tired that the fight went out of them. In
their weariness they granted the last broken and bedraggled Romans their
lives.

Let us pray that the US sailors who are unlucky enough to be on duty in
the Persian Gulf when the shooting starts can escape the fate of the
Roman army at Cannae. The odds will be heavily against them, however,
because they will face the same type of danger, tantamount to
envelopment. The US ships in the Gulf will already have come within
range of the Sunburn missiles and the even more-advanced SS-NX-26
Yakhonts missiles, also Russian-made (speed: Mach 2.9; range: 180 miles)
deployed by the Iranians along the Gulf's northern shore. Every US ship
will be exposed and vulnerable. When the Iranians spring the trap, the
entire lake will become a killing field.

Anti-ship cruise missiles are not new, as I've mentioned. Nor have they
yet determined the outcome in a conflict. But this is probably only
because these horrible weapons have never been deployed in sufficient
numbers. At the time of the Falklands war the Argentine air force
possessed only five Exocets, yet managed to sink two ships. With enough
of them, the Argentineans might have sunk the entire British fleet, and
won the war. Although we've never seen a massed attack of cruise
missiles, this is exactly what the US Navy could face in the next war in
the Gulf.

Try and imagine it if you can: barrage after barrage of Exocet-class
missiles, which the Iranians are known to possess in the hundreds, as
well as the unstoppable Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. The questions
that our purblind government leaders should be asking themselves, today,
if they value what historians will one day write about them, are two:
how many of the Russian anti-ship missiles has Putin already supplied to
Iran? And: How many more are currently in the pipeline?

In 2001, Jane's Defense Weekly reported that Iran was attempting to
acquire anti-ship missiles from Russia. Ominously, the same report also
mentioned that the more advanced Yakhonts missile was "optimized for
attacks against carrier task forces." Apparently its guidance system is
"able to distinguish an aircraft carrier from its escorts." The numbers
were not disclosed.

The US Navy will come under fire even if the US does not participate in
the first so-called surgical raids on Iran's nuclear sites, that is,
even if Israel goes it alone. Israel's brand-new fleet of 25 F-15s (paid
for by American taxpayers) has sufficient range to target Iran, but the
Israelis cannot mount an attack without crossing US-occupied Iraqi air
space. It will hardly matter if Washington gives the green light, or is
dragged into the conflict by a recalcitrant Israel. Either way, the
result will be the same. The Iranians will interpret US acquiescence as
complicity, and, in any event, they will understand that the real fight
is with the Americans. The Iranians will be entirely within their rights
to counter-attack in self-defense. Most of the world will see it this
way, and will support them, not America. The US and Israel will be
viewed as the aggressors, even as the unfortunate US sailors in harm's
way become cannon fodder. In the Gulf's shallow and confined waters
evasive maneuvers will be difficult, at best, and escape impossible.
Even if US planes control of the skies over the battlefield, the sailors
caught in the net below will be hard-pressed to survive. The Gulf will
run red with American blood.

From here, it only gets worse. Armed with their Russian-supplied cruise
missiles, the Iranians will close the lake's only outlet, the strategic
Strait of Hormuz, cutting off the trapped and dying Americans from help
and rescue. The US fleet massing in the Indian Ocean will stand by
helplessly, unable to enter the Gulf to assist the survivors or bring
logistical support to the other US forces on duty in Iraq. Couple this
with a major new ground offensive by the Iraqi insurgents, and, quite
suddenly, the tables could turn against the Americans in Baghdad. As
supplies and ammunition begin to run out, the status of US forces in the
region will become precarious. The occupiers will become the besieged.

With enough anti-ship missiles, the Iranians can halt tanker traffic
through Hormuz for weeks, even months. With the flow of oil from the
Gulf curtailed, the price of a barrel of crude will skyrocket on the
world market. Within days the global economy will begin to grind to a
halt. Tempers at an emergency round-the-clock session of the UN Security
Council will flare and likely explode into shouting and recriminations
as French, German, Chinese and even British ambassadors angrily accuse
the US of allowing Israel to threaten world order. But, as always,
because of the US veto the world body will be powerless to act...
America will stand alone, completely isolated.

Yet, despite the increasingly hostile international mood, elements of
the US media will spin the crisis very differently here at home, in a
way that is sympathetic to Israel. Members of Congress will rise to
speak in the House and Senate, and rally to Israel's defense, while
blaming the victim of the attack, Iran. Fundamentalist Christian talk
show hosts will proclaim the historic fulfillment of biblical prophecy
in our time, and will call upon the Jews of Israel to accept Jesus into
their hearts; meanwhile, urging the president to nuke the evil empire of
Islam. From across America will be heard histrionic cries for fresh
reinforcements, even a military draft. Patriots will demand victory at
any cost. Pundits will scream for an escalation of the conflict. A war
that ostensibly began as an attempt to prevent the spread of nuclear
weapons will teeter on the brink of their use.

Conclusion: Friends, we must work together to prevent such a
catastrophe. We must stop the next Middle East war before it starts. The
US government must turn over to the United Nations the primary
responsibility for resolving the deepening crisis in Iraq, and,
immediately thereafter, withdraw US forces from the country. We must
also prevail upon the Israelis to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)
and open all of their nuclear sites to IAEA inspectors. Only then can
serious talks begin with Iran and other states to establish a nuclear
weapon free zone (NWFZ) in the Mid East so essential to the region's
long-term peace and security."

This was originally posted on 11-2-4, and due to ongoing improvements in
the design capabilities of this missile system the threat is even more
lethal today. And we'd get into this for what, exactly? "Democracy",
"freedom", like we've given to Iraq? No, folks, it's about oil and
natural gas, resources which we're competing for, and money, always money. Only a damned fool would be willing to die for Exxon/Mobil, BP and the rest of that lot...- CP

•

"Iran’s Arsenal Of Sunburn Missiles Is More

Than Enough To Close The Strait of Hormuz"
by Jim Campbell

"The Sunburn is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world,
designed to fly as low as 9 feet above ground/water at more than 1,500
miles per hour (mach 2+). The missile uses a violent pop-up maneuver
for its terminal approach to throw off Phalanx and other U.S.
anti-missile defense systems. Given their low cost, they’re perfectly
suited for close quarter naval conflict in the bathtub-like Persian
Gulf.

The Sunburn is versatile, and can be fired from practically any
platform, including just a flat bed truck. It has a 90-mile range, which
is all that is necessary in the small Persian Gulf and 40-mile-wide
Strait of Hormuz. Fired from shore a missile could hit a ship in the
Strait in less than a minute. It presents a real threat to the U.S.
Navy. Tests using the Aegean and RAM ship defense technology stops the
Sunburn 95% of the time, but such testing was done in open seas, not a
bathtub. The payload hit with a 750-pound conventional warhead can be
witnessed at 1:53-1:57 in this video. Not enough to sink a carrier, but
it could take down smaller capital ships and crew.

You don’t have to be Hannibal preparing for the Battle of Cannae to see
that the Strait is a potential shooting gallery. Without a doubt, Iran
has plotted and mapped every firing angle and location along the Gulf,
their home-court coastline. This is going to put enormous interdiction
pressure on U.S. warplanes to spot and destroy platforms, which may be
as simple as a flat-bed truck. In reality, Iran has dug in from Jask in
the east to Bandar in the west and can easily cover any ship, commercial
or military, traversing the narrow Strait.

Equally disturbing is Iran’s missile range for the entire Persian Gulf.
Bahrain itself could be hit by the longer-range version of the Sunburn,
the Onyx. Is the U.S. (which has three aircraft carrier groups in play
currently) going to stick around or clear out to the Oman Sea, leaving
control of the oil lanes to Iran? Or will they stay and slug it out with
the Iranians? If so, at what cost?"

No comments:

Post a Comment

A Revolutionary Act...

Government truth? LOL

How It Really Is

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.”

- Ron Paul

Translate

Search This Blog

Loading...

Follow by Email

Why is this blog here?

"Many people need desperately to receive this message: 'I feel and think much as you do, care about many of the things you care about, although most people do not care about them. You are not alone.'" - Kurt Vonnegut

"Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?"

But remember: "I didn't say it would be easy. I just said it would be the truth." - Morpheus

Fellow Travelers

Troll Free Zone

Facts, Not Opinions

Truth

“If any man is able to show me and prove to me that I do not think or act right, I will gladly change, for I seek the truth, by which no man was ever injured. It is only persistence in self delusion and ignorance that does harm.” - Marcus Aurelius

Top 100 Blogs

The Daily Reviewer

Wikio

Fair Use Disclaimer, US Copyright Law

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."This site provides political commentary, education and parody protected by the fair use and My Lai/Zapruder exceptions to copyright law.This blog may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. All posts are clearly attributed by name and active link to the original author and website. I am making such material available on a non-profit basis for educational, research and discussion purposes in my efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. Articles are reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and are for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in US Copyright Law, Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make 'fair use' of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.More information at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

Contact CoyotePrime-at-gmail.com with complaints, comments.

"You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes." - Morpheus